|
Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M005195200 on July 26, 2000
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 275, Issue 42, 32499-32507, October 20, 2000
Hsp90 Chaperone Activity Requires the Full-length Protein and
Interaction among Its Multiple Domains*
Brian D.
Johnson ,
Ahmed
Chadli ,
Sara J.
Felts ,
Ilhem
Bouhouche§,
Maria G.
Catelli§, and
David O.
Toft ¶
From the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology, Mayo Graduate School, Rochester, Minnesota 55905 and
§ CNRS UPR 1524, 24 rue du Faubourg St Jacques,
75014 Paris, France
Received for publication, June 15, 2000, and in revised form, July 24, 2000
 |
ABSTRACT |
Hsp90 is an abundant and ubiquitous protein
involved in a diverse array of cellular processes. Mechanistically we
understand little of the apparently complex interactions of this
molecular chaperone. Recently, progress has been made in assigning some of the known functions of hsp90, such as nucleotide binding and peptide
binding, to particular domains within the protein. We used fragments of
hsp90 and chimeric proteins containing functional domains from hsp90 or
its mitochondrial homolog, TRAP1, to study the requirements for this
protein in the folding of firefly luciferase as well as in the
prevention of citrate synthase aggregation. In agreement with others
who have found peptide binding and limited chaperone ability in
fragments of hsp90, we see that multiple fragments from hsp90 can
prevent the aggregation of thermally denatured citrate synthase, a
measure of passive chaperoning activity. However, in contrast to these
results, the luciferase folding assay was found to be much more
demanding. Here, folding is mediated by hsp70 and hsp40, requires ATP,
and thus is a measure of active chaperoning. Hsp90 and the
co-chaperone, Hop, enhance this process. This hsp90 activity was only
observed using full-length hsp90 indicating that the cooperation of
multiple functional domains is essential for active, chaperone-mediated folding.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The importance of the 90-kDa heat shock protein
(hsp90)1 is clearly
demonstrated by its abundance in all species with a remarkable 40%
amino acid identity from Escherichia coli to humans (1, 2).
Hsp90 is involved in numerous cellular processes, and deletion studies
have shown that it is essential for viability in yeast (3, 4) and
Drosophila (5). A number of cell-signaling proteins such as
kinases and steroid receptors require hsp90 function to reach their
active state within the cell (reviewed in Refs. 6 and 7). Several
recent papers have conclusively established through biochemical and
crystallographic studies that the amino-terminal domain of hsp90 binds
ATP and ADP as well as geldanamycin (GA), a specific inhibitor of hsp90
function (8-11). Although the association of hsp90 with its
co-chaperones is dependent on its nucleotide state (12-14), the
mechanistic details of hsp90 action remain unclear.
In many of these processes, hsp90 does not act alone, but requires the
aid of several co-chaperone proteins (6, 7). The interaction of hsp90
with its co-chaperones has been studied most extensively in the
assembly of steroid receptor complexes (6, 15). In this process, hsp90
is found in two distinct complexes characterized by the presence of
different sets of co-chaperone proteins. When it first enters steroid
receptor complexes, hsp90 is associated with Hop and hsp70 (15, 16).
Hop is a 60-kDa protein that is capable of binding both hsp70 and hsp90
when these proteins are in their ADP-bound state (12, 17). As the
steroid receptor complex progresses toward the mature form capable of binding hormone, more hsp90 enters the complex while hsp70 and Hop
levels diminish (15, 18). This mature form is also characterized by the
appearance of the hsp90 co-chaperone p23, which interacts specifically
with ATP-bound hsp90 (14), and one of three large immunophilins (15).
Similar complexes between hsp90 and its co-chaperones are also found in
the absence of any substrate protein, indicating that pre-assembled
multiprotein complexes may act to chaperone a variety of substrate
proteins (16, 19-21).
In addition to its role in the maturation of cell-signaling molecules,
hsp90 has also been shown to play a role in more general protein
folding. It is able to suppress the aggregation of denatured citrate
synthase and -galactosidase and maintain these enzymes in a
refoldable state (22, 23). It also potentiates the refolding of firefly
luciferase, in vitro and in vivo, by hsp70 and
hsp40 (Ydj1) (12, 24, 25). A fragment containing the carboxyl-terminal 194 residues of hsp90 has been shown to convert MyoD1 to an active conformation in vitro (26). More recently, Scheibel et
al. (27) and Young et al. (28) have reported that hsp90
contains two independent chaperone sites: one in the amino-terminal
nucleotide-binding domain and the other in the carboxyl-terminal
domain. Fragments containing these chaperone sites are able to bind to
peptides with differing specificities and suppress the aggregation of
unfolded proteins.
An assay for the chaperone-mediated refolding of thermally denatured
firefly luciferase has been described previously (12, 25). In this
system, the chaperones hsp70 and the yeast hsp40, Ydj1, are absolute
requirements for the refolding process. Hsp90 can enhance refolding
under many conditions, functioning in both a passive, ATP-independent
manner, and in an active, ATP-dependent manner that can be
augmented by Hop (12, 17, 25). These data, combined with recent reports
regarding the abilities of two separate hsp90 fragments to act as
chaperones prompted us to test a variety of hsp90 constructs for
chaperone activity. In order to better define the functional domains of
hsp90 involved in active and passive refolding processes, we tested a
number of deletion mutants of hsp90 along with two chimeric forms of hsp90 and its mitochondrial homolog TRAP1 (29-31) in luciferase refolding as well as in the suppression of citrate synthase
aggregation. The striking feature of the data is that while the
suppression of citrate synthase aggregation can be accomplished by
small fragments from within hsp90, essentially the entire hsp90
sequence is necessary for proper functioning in the refolding of luciferase.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Construction of Hsp90 Fragments and Chimeric
Proteins--
Wild-type, chicken hsp90, and the fragments of hsp90
shown in Fig. 1 were constructed using polymerase chain reaction
to generate DNA fragments encoding the appropriate amino- and
carboxyl-terminal protein sequences (32). These were subcloned into the
pGEX expression vector (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) such that the
initiating methionine is in-frame with the GST. The sequences of the
final plasmids were confirmed by automated DNA sequencing. The proteins
were expressed in BL21(DE3) pLysS cells and purified by glutathione affinity chromatography followed by Mono Q chromatography.
The hsp90/TRAP1 chimeric proteins, N90-TRAP and
NC90-TRAP, were constructed using polymerase chain reaction
to generate DNA fragments encoding the appropriate amino- and
carboxyl-terminal protein sequences. The primers
h90b-85(NdeI) 5'-GATCGATCCATATGCCTGAGGAAGTGCACCATGGA-3' and
either h90b-726rev(EcoRV)
5'-GGTGATGGGATATCCTATGAACTGAGAATG-3' (for N90-TRAP) or
h90b-920rev(ClaI) 5'-TGATCGATGTATTTCTCTTTGATCTTCTTAGT-3' (for NC90-TRAP) were used to generate amino-terminal
hsp90-encoding DNA fragments. The primer TRAP1-803RV
5'-GATCGATCGATATCCCATCTACTTGAATGGAAGGCGGATGAAC-3' or TRAP1-812Cla
5'-GTATCGATGGAAGGCGGATGAACACCTTGCA-3' and SF-4 5'-AGTCAGTCGGATCCTTATCAGTGTCGCTCCAGGGCCTTGAC-3' were used to
generate carboxyl-terminal TRAP1-encoding DNA fragments. The
NH2-terminal hsp90 DNA fragments were digested with
NdeI and EcoRV or NdeI and
ClaI. The COOH-terminal TRAP1 DNA fragments were digested with EcoRV or ClaI and BamHI. Each
pair of fragments was then ligated into
NdeI/BamHI-digested pET9a. The sequences of the
final plasmids were confirmed by automated DNA sequencing.
N90-TRAP and NC90-TRAP proteins were produced
in BL21(DE3) pLysS cells and purified as described previously for TRAP1
(30).
Purification of Hsp90--
Human hsp90 was expressed in
Sf9 cells using the system of Alnemri and Litwack (33), and
purified as described previously (14). Cell lysates were fractionated
by DEAE-cellulose column chromatography, followed by heparin-agarose
and Mono Q chromatography. The preparation was greater than 99% pure
as assessed by densitometry of SDS-PAGE gels. Protein concentration was
determined by amino acid analysis.
Purification of Hsp70--
Human hsp70 was expressed in
Sf9 cells (33), and purified as described previously for avian
hsp70 (25). Cell lysates were fractionated by DEAE-cellulose and
ATP-agarose column chromatography. This was precipitated using ammonium
sulfate (75% saturation), and the redissolved hsp70 was fractionated
by 16/60 Superdex 200 FPLC. Only the monomer peak of hsp70 was used.
The preparation was approximately 97% pure as assessed by densitometry
of SDS-PAGE gels. Protein concentration was determined by amino acid analysis.
Purification of Hop--
Human Hop expressed in bacteria was
prepared essentially as described previously (34). Bacterial lysates
were fractionated by DEAE-cellulose and hydroxylapatite column
chromatography. Additional purification was achieved by fractionating
the pool from hydroxylapatite on a Mono Q column (10/10, Amersham
Pharmacia Biotech). The preparation was approximately 94% pure as
assessed by densitometry of SDS-PAGE gels. Protein concentration was
determined by amino acid analysis.
Purification of Ydj1--
A bacterial expression system for
Ydj1p was supplied by Dr. Avrom Caplan, and has been described
previously (35). Bacterial lysates were fractionated by DEAE-cellulose
and hydroxylapatite column chromatography. The preparation was
approximately 80% pure as assessed by densitometry of SDS-PAGE gels.
Protein concentration was determined by amino acid analysis.
Buffers and Materials--
Tris buffer (TB) was 10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 3 mM MgCl2, 50 mM KCl, and 2 mM dithiothreitol. Stability
buffer (SB) was 25 mM Tricine-HCl, pH 7.8, 8 mM
MgSO4, 0.1 mM EDTA, 10 mg/ml bovine serum
albumin, 10% glycerol, and 0.25% Triton X-100. Geldanamycin was
obtained from the Drug Synthesis and Chemistry Branch, Developmental Therapeutics Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute.
Aggregation of Citrate Synthase Assay--
The thermal
aggregation of citrate synthase molecules was measured as described
previously (36). Citrate synthase (0.115 µM), in 40 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, was incubated at 43 °C to allow
denaturation and aggregation to occur. The increase in optical density
due to light scattering was measured at 336 nm to determine the extent of aggregation of the citrate synthase. These assays were carried out
in the presence or absence of a variety of hsp90 constructs, at 0.575 µM each, five times the concentration of citrate synthase.
Luciferase Refolding Assay--
Luciferase refolding assays were
performed as described previously (25). Firefly luciferase, 100 nM in SB, was heat denatured at 40 °C for 15 min to
~0.2% of its original activity. This was diluted 10-fold into a
refolding mixture containing purified chaperone proteins, 2 mM ATP, and an ATP-regenerating system in TB. The refolding
mixture was incubated at 25 °C to promote folding, and at the
indicated times following addition of denatured luciferase, aliquots
were removed and luciferase activity was measured in a luminometer.
We performed all of the luciferase assays under conditions optimized to
detect the hsp90 effect, which involved working at above optimal
concentrations of hsp70. Because of this, misfolded proteins in the
hsp90 fragment preparations could decrease the effective concentration
of hsp70 and cause an increase in luciferase refolding by hsp70 and
Ydj1 alone. This could easily be misinterpreted as a positive effect of
the hsp90 preparation, and may account for the slight effects seen with
some of the hsp90 fragment preparations. All assays were repeated
several times and the results shown are typical of those results.
Protein Binding Assays--
Hop binding to hsp90, TRAP1,
N90-TRAP, and NC90-TRAP was assayed using 10 µg of each protein under conditions previously shown to be optimal
for hsp90-Hop complex formation in vitro (25 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 50 mM KCl, 1 mM dithiothreitol,
and 5 mM MgCl2) (12). The protein mixtures were
incubated at 30 °C for 30 min and added to antibody-protein A resins
as indicated in the figure legends. The immunoprecipitations were
incubated on ice for 1 h with occasional mixing and then washed
four times with 1 ml of cold buffer. The proteins were eluted by
boiling in SDS sample buffer, resolved by SDS-PAGE, and visualized by
Coomassie Blue staining.
 |
RESULTS |
Fragments of Hsp90 Can Suppress Protein Aggregation--
Previous
studies have demonstrated the existence of two independent
peptide-binding sites in hsp90 (27, 28). One of these sites is located
in the amino-terminal nucleotide-binding domain of hsp90 and appears to
be influenced by the highly charged region immediately following this
domain (37). The other peptide-binding site is located near the
carboxyl terminus. We used fragments of hsp90 fused to the dimeric
protein, glutathione S-transferase (GST) to inhibit the
aggregation of citrate synthase during thermal denaturation and confirm
the existence of chaperone sites in both ends of hsp90. The hsp90
fragments used in this paper are shown in Fig.
1.

View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Constructs of hsp90 used in this study and
summary of results. This illustration shows the composition of
hsp90, TRAP1, and the fragments and chimeras of hsp90 and TRAP1 used in
this study. Boundaries are shown by the residue numbers
above the gray bars for hsp90 residues, and
below the white bars for TRAP1 residues. The
ATP-binding domains (ATP) of hsp90 and TRAP1 and the charged region
(±) of hsp90 are indicated where present. To the right of
each construct is shown the results from luciferase refolding and
prevention of citrate synthase aggregation assays. The activity of each
construct is compared with the effect shown by hsp90 and categorized as
full effect (+), reduced effect (+/ ), or no effect ( ).
|
|
When denatured at 43 °C, citrate synthase aggregates; however,
hsp90, at a molar ratio of 5:1, can prevent this aggregation to a large
degree (see Fig. 6). The GST-wt construct also can effectively prevent
citrate synthase aggregation, but GST alone lacks this ability (Fig.
2). In accordance with the results
reported by others, a fragment from the amino terminus,
GST-(1-573), and a fragment from the carboxyl terminus,
GST-(446-728), are also able to suppress the aggregation of citrate
synthase (Fig. 2). Additionally, fragments GST-(1-332), GST-(1-698),
GST-(206-728), and GST-(287-728) were tested and each one is able to
prevent citrate synthase from aggregating (summarized in Fig. 1). A
fragment of hsp90 encoding residues 1-573 without GST was also
expressed and like its partner, GST-(1-573), it is able to suppress
citrate synthase aggregation, although it is less efficient than
GST-(1-573) (Fig. 2). This may be due to the fact that GST-(1-573) is
a dimer while 1-573 alone appears to be a monomer (not shown). In
previous work by Young et al. (28) it can also be seen that
hsp90 fragments are more efficient at preventing rhodanese aggregation
when they are fused to GST. Surprisingly, a fragment containing only a
small portion of hsp90 from the central part of the molecule,
GST-(206-446), is able to prevent the aggregation of thermally
denatured citrate synthase as well (Fig. 2) suggesting this as an
additional domain for peptide interaction.

View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Fragments of hsp90 are able to prevent
citrate synthase aggregation. Aggregation of 0.115 µM citrate synthase was measured by the increase in
absorbance due to light scattering during treatment at 43 °C for
1 h in the absence of any chaperone protein ( ) and in the
presence of five times the citrate synthase concentration (0.575 µM calculated as a monomer) of GST ( ), GST-wt ( ),
GST-(1-573) ( ), GST-(206-446) ( ), GST-(446-728) ( ), and
1-573 ( ), and plotted as a function of time.
|
|
Fragments of Hsp90 Are Unable to Assist Hsp70 and Ydj1 in the
Refolding of Luciferase--
We tested these same fragments for the
ability to stimulate luciferase refolding by hsp70/Ydj1 in the absence
and presence of Hop. When hsp90 is added to a refolding mixture
containing hsp70 and Ydj1, it can substantially stimulate the refolding
process (12, 17, 25). The chaperoning of hsp90 in luciferase refolding has an active component that is ATP-dependent, potentiated
by Hop, inhibited by GA, and inhibited by point mutations that block ATP binding or hydrolysis (17, 25). The effect of hsp90 also has an
ATP-independent component, termed passive chaperoning activity, that
functions in the presence of GA and is unaffected by mutations in the
ATP-binding site. We were interested in determining whether the
fragments of hsp90 that can prevent aggregation also are able to
participate in the refolding of firefly luciferase; a more stringent
test of chaperone activity than simply binding to a protein to prevent
its aggregation. We also wanted to determine whether the passive
activity of hsp90 in luciferase refolding is the same activity we see
in the ATP-independent citrate synthase assay, and whether we could
identify discrete regions of hsp90 responsible for the active and
passive chaperoning capacities.
The addition of a GST tag to wild type hsp90 does not alter the
function of hsp90 in luciferase refolding (Figs.
3, A and B, 4,
A and B). However, three GST fusion proteins
containing amino-terminal fragments of hsp90, GST-(1-332),
GST-(1-573), and GST-(1-698), are unable to stimulate luciferase
refolding by hsp70 and Ydj1 either in the absence (Fig. 3A)
or presence (Fig. 3B) of Hop despite the fact that each of
these fragments is able to prevent citrate synthase aggregation. These
hsp90 fragments are not aggregated and they have a functional
ATP-binding domain that binds to ATP-Sepharose (results not shown). A
fragment of hsp90 encoding residues 1-573 was also expressed and
tested and, like its GST fusion protein, it shows no activity (not
shown). Next, we tried an internal fragment from hsp90, GST-(206-446),
and a fragment missing the charged region of hsp90 from residues
206-287, GST- CR. Although both of these fragments can prevent
citrate synthase aggregation, neither is able to stimulate luciferase refolding either in the absence (Fig.
4A) or presence (Fig.
4B) of Hop. Finally, we tried using carboxyl-terminal
fragments of hsp90 in luciferase refolding, GST-(206-728) and
GST-(287-728). Like the other fragments, these are able to prevent
citrate synthase aggregation but unable to assist in luciferase
refolding either in the absence (Fig.
5A) or in the presence (Fig.
5B) of Hop. These fragments do have the capacity to bind Hop
(results not shown). Any inhibitory effect of GST can be ruled out
because when the GST is cleaved from the amino terminus of
GST-(287-728), the resulting fragment also has no activity (not
shown). A comparison of the many hsp90 fragments in luciferase
refolding (Figs. 3-5) versus in aggregation prevention
(Fig. 2) shows a vast difference in the chaperone requirements for
these two assays (Fig. 1).

View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Amino-terminal fragments of hsp90 are unable
to stimulate luciferase refolding. Thermally denatured firefly
luciferase (100 nM) was diluted 10-fold into a refolding
mixture containing: A, hsp70 and Ydj1 ( ), plus hsp90
( ), GST-wt ( ), GST-(1-332) ( ), GST-(1-573) ( ), and
GST-(1-698) ( ); B, same as in A but in the
presence of Hop. The hsp70 concentration used was 1.33 µM, the Ydj1 concentration was 0.16 µM, the
concentration of all hsp90 constructs was 0.5 µM, and the
Hop concentration was 0.1 µM. Luciferase activity was
measured at the indicated times and plotted.
|
|

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
An internal fragment containing the charged
domain of hsp90 and a fragment lacking the charged domain of hsp90 are
unable to stimulate luciferase refolding. Thermally denatured
firefly luciferase (100 nM) was diluted 10-fold into a
refolding mixture containing: A, hsp70 and Ydj1 ( ), plus
hsp90 ( ), GST-wt ( ), GST- CR ( ), and GST-(206-446) ( );
B, same as in A but in the presence of Hop. The
hsp70 concentration used was 1.33 µM, the Ydj1
concentration was 0.16 µM, the concentration of all hsp90
constructs was 0.5 µM, and the Hop concentration was 0.1 µM. Luciferase activity was measured at the indicated
times and plotted.
|
|

View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
A carboxyl-terminal fragment shows some
passive chaperone activity in the refolding of luciferase.
Thermally denatured firefly luciferase (100 nM) was diluted
10-fold into a refolding mixture containing: A, hsp70 and
Ydj1 ( ), plus hsp90 ( ), GST-(446-728) ( ), GST-(206-728)
( ), and GST-(287-728) ( ); B, same as in A
but in the presence of Hop; C, hsp70 and Ydj1 ( ), plus GA
( ), GST-wt ( ), GST-wt and GA ( ), GST-(446-728) ( ), and
GST-(446-728) and GA ( ). The hsp70 concentration used was 1 µM, the Ydj1 concentration was 0.16 µM, the
concentration of all hsp90 constructs was 0.5 µM, the Hop
concentration was 0.1 µM, and the GA concentration was 10 µg/ml. Luciferase activity was measured at the indicated times and
plotted. D, thermally denatured firefly luciferase (100 nM) was diluted 10-fold into a refolding mixture containing
1 µM hsp70, 0.16 µM Ydj1, and 0.1 µM Hop in the presence of 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 1, or 5 µM hsp90 ( ) or GST-(446-728) ( ). Luciferase
activity was measured after 120 min of incubation for each
concentration of hsp90 and GST-(446-728) and plotted versus
the concentration of hsp90 or GST-(446-728).
|
|
GST-(446-728) Has a Limited Ability to Stimulate Luciferase
Refolding--
Of the many hsp90 fragments we tested for activity in
luciferase refolding, only one shows any activity, GST-(446-728) (Fig. 5A). This activity is consistently seen, but only in the
absence of Hop (Fig. 5B) even though this fragment can bind
Hop (not shown). While hsp90s activity in luciferase refolding is
partially sensitive to GA, the activity of GST-(446-728), like hsp70
and Ydj1 alone, is not inhibited by GA; thus it corresponds to the
passive chaperone activity of hsp90 (Fig. 5C). The activity
of this fragment is somewhat less than the passive activity of
full-length hsp90 which remains in the presence of GA suggesting that
the passive chaperone activity may not be fully contained within
residues 446-728 (Fig. 5C). The amount of GST-(446-728)
does not appear to be limiting because adding more causes no additional
stimulation in refolding (Fig. 5D).
Chimeras of Hsp90 and TRAP1 Can Suppress Protein
Aggregation--
TRAP1, a mitochondrial member of the hsp90 family of
chaperones has been recently shown to behave differently from hsp90 in a number of hsp90 functions (30). It cannot replace hsp90 in progesterone-receptor complexes and it is unable to bind the
co-chaperones Hop and p23. We wanted to determine whether this homolog
of hsp90 could substitute in luciferase refolding and in the prevention of citrate synthase aggregation. Furthermore, we made two chimeric proteins from hsp90 and TRAP1 by swapping key domains from hsp90 into
TRAP1. Chimera N90-TRAP contains the
NH2-terminal 212-residue nucleotide-binding domain of hsp90
fused to residues 230 to the COOH terminus of TRAP1, and chimera
NC90-TRAP is composed of the nucleotide-binding domain plus
the next 65 residues from the highly charged domain of hsp90 (lacking in TRAP1), again fused to residues 230 to the COOH terminus of TRAP1
(Fig. 1). We hoped these chimeric proteins would shed new light on the
functions associated with some of hsp90s domains.
As seen in Fig. 6, hsp90 is able to
suppress the aggregation of citrate synthase caused by treatment at
43 °C. When tested in this same assay, TRAP1 also is capable of
suppressing aggregation, however, it does so with a much lower
efficiency. It is important to note that despite the low efficiency of
the interaction, a functional interaction between TRAP1 and denatured
citrate synthase does occur, as not all proteins prevent aggregation in
this assay (36). Both chimeric proteins are more efficient than TRAP1
at preventing aggregation, with NC90-TRAP being somewhat
better than N90-TRAP, and both looking very similar to
hsp90 (Fig. 6). Somehow the nucleotide-binding domain of hsp90 confers
increased activity on TRAP1 in this assay, despite the fact that this
is the region in which they have the greatest identity (30).

View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Hsp90·TRAP1 chimeras are able to prevent
citrate synthase aggregation. Aggregation of 0.115 µM citrate synthase was measured by the increase in
absorbance due to light scattering during treatment at 43 °C for
1 h in the absence of any chaperone protein ( ), and in the
presence of five times the citrate synthase concentration (0.575 µM calculated as a monomer) of hsp90 ( ), TRAP1 ( ),
N90-TRAP ( ), and NC90-TRAP ( ) and plotted
as a function of time.
|
|
Hsp90-TRAP1 Chimera, NC90-TRAP, Is Able to Assist
Hsp70, Ydj1, and Hop in the Refolding of Luciferase--
We then
tested TRAP1 and the chimeras, N90-TRAP and
NC90-TRAP, for the ability to stimulate active and passive
luciferase refolding by hsp70 and Ydj1 in the absence and presence of
Hop. As seen above using fragments of hsp90, this assay is a more
stringent test of chaperone function than is the prevention of protein
aggregation. In the absence of Hop, neither TRAP1 nor the chimeras has
any effect on luciferase refolding (Fig.
7A). When Hop is present in
the refolding reaction, TRAP1 and N90-TRAP still show no
activity, but NC90-TRAP displays a dramatic effect similar
to the effect of hsp90 (Fig. 7B). The activity of this
chimera corresponds to the active chaperoning of hsp90, as it is GA
sensitive (not shown) and dependent upon cooperation with Hop (Fig. 7,
A and B). Interestingly, NC90-TRAP
always lags slightly behind hsp90 in luciferase refolding when
comparing a range of concentrations (Fig. 7B, and results not shown).

View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
The charged domain of hsp90 is necessary for
hsp90 chimera mediated stimulation of luciferase refolding.
Thermally denatured firefly luciferase (100 nM) was diluted
10-fold into a refolding mixture containing: A, hsp70 and
Ydj1 ( ), plus hsp90 ( ), TRAP1 ( ), N90-TRAP ( ),
and NC90-TRAP ( ); B, same as in A
but in the presence of Hop. The hsp70 concentration used was 1 µM, the Ydj1 concentration was 0.16 µM, the
concentration of all hsp90 and TRAP1 constructs was 0.5 µM, and the Hop concentration was 0.1 µM.
Luciferase activity was measured at the indicated times and
plotted.
|
|
Chimera NC90-TRAP Requires Hop to Assist in Luciferase
Folding, but Binding of Hop to NC90-TRAP Is Not
Required--
We have previously shown that TRAP1 does not bind to Hop
(30), which is not surprising given the divergence of hsp90 and TRAP1
in the carboxyl-terminal, Hop-binding region. The carboxyl terminus of
the hsp90-TRAP1 chimeras is derived from TRAP1, leading us to believe
that they would be unable to bind to Hop. On the other hand, because
Hop is required to see an effect of NC90-TRAP on luciferase
refolding and because Hop's role in hsp70/hsp90-mediated chaperone
processes is thought to reside in its ability to bring these two
chaperone systems together, we reasoned that the two proteins must bind
to each other. To test for a stable physical interaction between Hop
and NC90-TRAP, we performed several immunoprecipitations
using purified proteins. Hop was incubated with N90-TRAP,
NC90-TRAP, hsp90, or TRAP1 followed by precipitation with
an antibody to progesterone receptor, TRAP1, hsp90, or Hop (Fig.
8A). The results show that
while hsp90 binds Hop to form a stable complex in vitro
(lanes 9 and 10); TRAP1 (lanes 12 and
13), N90-TRAP (lanes 2 and
3), and NC90-TRAP (lanes 5-7) do not
bind Hop.

View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 8.
Hop binding to hsp90 chimera is not essential
for hsp90-mediated stimulation of luciferase refolding.
A, purified Hop (10 µg) was incubated in the presence of
10 µg of N90-TRAP (lanes 1-3),
NC90-TRAP (lanes 4-7), hsp90 (lanes
8-10), or TRAP1 (lanes 11-13) under optimal
conditions for hsp90-Hop interaction. Antibody-protein A resins were
added as indicated in the figure, and bound proteins were eluted,
resolved by SDS-PAGE, and visualized by Coomassie Blue staining.
B, thermally denatured firefly luciferase (100 nM) was diluted 10-fold into a refolding mixture containing
1 µM hsp70, 0.16 µM Ydj1, and 0.5 µM hsp90 ( and ) or NC90-TRAP ( and
) in the presence of increasing concentrations of Hop (0, 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, and 1 µM). Luciferase activity was
measured after 60 ( and ) and 120 ( and ) min of incubation
for each concentration of Hop and plotted versus the
concentration of Hop.
|
|
We reasoned that a low affinity binding between Hop and
NC90-TRAP might still exist and be essential for their role
in refolding, although it could not be detected by immunoprecipitation.
Thus we anticipated that Hop would be required in higher amounts when NC90-TRAP is used in refolding than when hsp90 is used.
Using the luciferase refolding assay, we tested a range of Hop
concentrations for their ability to stimulate refolding in the presence
of hsp90 or NC90-TRAP (Fig. 8B). Concentration
curves for Hop show no major increase in the Hop requirement when
NC90-TRAP is substituted for hsp90 in refolding. This
supports the result observed in immune precipitations.
 |
DISCUSSION |
The past three years have brought great advances in our
understanding of the important chaperone protein hsp90. We know the site at which nucleotides bind to hsp90 (9, 10, 17) and that GA shares
this binding site (9, 39), giving us an understanding of its inhibitory
effects on hsp90. We also know that ATP hydrolysis is essential to
hsp90s activities (17, 40, 41), and that hsp90 is capable of binding
substrate proteins in a simple, in vitro assay through both
its amino- and carboxyl-terminal domains (27, 28). Information from the
crystal structures of the amino terminus of hsp90 has been instrumental
in establishing the binding sites for ATP and GA, but the chaperone
function of hsp90 has been studied primarily using three functional
assays: the ability to prevent aggregation of a denatured substrate
(citrate synthase, rhodanese, insulin, and -galactosidase), the
ability to mediate the assembly of steroid receptor complexes in the
presence of other chaperones, and the ability to stimulate the
refolding of firefly luciferase in a mixture of chaperones. These
assays each yield their own type of information, sometimes with
conflicting results. To understand the information provided from each
assay and use it properly to synthesize a conception of hsp90 function, some comparison of these assays is helpful.
The influence of hsp90 in the luciferase folding assay is complex.
While full activity requires ATP and a functional nucleotide-binding domain of hsp90, partial activity is observed with ATP-binding mutants
of hsp90 or in the presence of GA (17). However, this latter passive
chaperoning activity is distinct from the ability of hsp90 to block
aggregation of denatured proteins such as citrate synthase. If both
assay types required the same activities, then fragments which bind
peptides and prevent protein aggregation would also show passive
chaperone activity in the refolding of luciferase. Our results show
that, of all hsp90 constructs that were able to prevent citrate
synthase aggregation, only GST-(446-728) showed any passive activity
in luciferase refolding. Perhaps it should not be a surprise that the
results from these two assays show little correlation. The protein
aggregation assay is not dependent on energy input from ATP or on the
presence of other chaperone proteins and both of these are requirements
for the refolding of luciferase and the reconstitution of
steroid-receptor complexes.
The fragments of hsp90 we used in this work have abilities similar to
the fragments studied by others in preventing protein aggregation (27,
28). However, our fragments encompass different residues and could
behave differently because one or the other is not capable of
native-like folding (i.e. exposes an unnatural hydrophobic
surface to the environment). An exposed hydrophobic surface caused by
truncation of a protein could function, at least superficially, as a
chaperone by binding to a peptide or a misfolded protein and preventing
its self-association. This is supported by the observation that all of
our fragments work in the citrate synthase assay although perhaps not
all of them contain a physiological substrate-binding site. We do know
that all of the constructs used in this study are soluble, readily
purified, and not aggregated. Furthermore, all, except GST-(206-446),
have been found to contain properly folded domains that can interact
effectively with either ATP, Hop, or the hsp90 co-chaperone p23 (46).
In a companion study,2 we have tested the hsp90 constructs
in Fig. 1 for their ability to chaperone the progesterone receptor.
This activity was observed only with full-length hsp90 and GST-wt.
Thus, these results are in agreement with those of the luciferase
assay. While we believe that assaying for the prevention of protein
aggregation can provide useful information on the nature of
chaperone-substrate interactions, caution should be observed when
extrapolating from this type of information to make predictions about
more complex chaperone-mediated processes as there appears to be little
correlation between the two.
Throughout much of this work, we use fragments of hsp90 fused to GST.
It is important to note that the attachment of GST to the amino
terminus of hsp90 does not have a detrimental effect on hsp90 function.
When free in solution, hsp90 is dimerized in anti-parallel fashion
through contacts near the COOH terminus, leaving the NH2
termini distant from one another (42). GST-wt behaves similarly to
hsp90 in preventing citrate synthase aggregation and in refolding
firefly luciferase despite the fact that its amino termini are held
together through the dimerization of GST. GST-wt also functions in the
assembly of progesterone receptor complexes and appears to interact
normally with ATP, p23, and Hop (46). Since dimerization through GST
enhances the passive chaperoning activity of fragment 1-573 (Fig. 2),
it is possible that subunit interactions near the amino termini occur
during the normal functioning of hsp90, as has been suggested
previously based on structural studies (43, 44). The importance of the amino-terminal nucleotide-binding domain of hsp90 in active chaperoning has already been shown by its GA sensitivity and the detrimental effects of point mutations within the nucleotide binding pocket (17,
40, 41). Here, we again show its importance to active chaperoning as
well as show its requirement in passive chaperone activity since both
GST-(287-728) and GST-(206-728) lack the ability to refold
luciferase. In contrast, the passive chaperoning activity displayed by
GST-(446-728) in the luciferase assay seems to indicate that the
isolated carboxyl terminus may be under some negative regulation by
residues 206-446 in the absence of the nucleotide-binding domain. In
the citrate synthase assay for the prevention of aggregation, GST-(446-728) is no more effective than other hsp90 fragments (not
shown). Thus, the citrate synthase assay provides no indication of the
functions needed for the passive chaperoning of luciferase.
Several of the constructs used in this work speak to the importance of
the charged region of hsp90 to its chaperone functions, both active and
passive. GST- CR lacks the charged region of hsp90 and is no longer
functional in supporting the refolding of luciferase. Chimera
N90-TRAP, which has no charged region, is not active in
luciferase refolding while NC90-TRAP, which has the charged
region added, behaves similarly to hsp90 in active chaperoning. This is
in agreement with recent work by Scheibel et al. (37)
showing that the charged region is an important modulator of peptide
binding to hsp90. However, GST- CR functions very well in the
prevention of citrate synthase aggregation. Therefore, the charged
region of hsp90 is not absolutely required for this limited chaperone activity.
The importance of the carboxyl-terminal region to the chaperone
function of hsp90 is highlighted by the inability of GST-(1-332), GST-(1-573), and GST-(1-698) to participate in any aspect of
refolding. GST-(1-698) is only missing 30 residues from its carboxyl
terminus. Thus, these few residues are essential to hsp90's chaperone
activity, both passive and active, as seen in the refolding of
luciferase. At least some of this chaperone activity is conserved in
the carboxyl-terminal region of TRAP1. On its own, TRAP1 is not as
efficient as hsp90 in preventing citrate synthase aggregation. However,
this activity to suppress aggregation can be greatly improved by
replacing the nucleotide-binding domain of TRAP1 with that from hsp90
(chimera N90-TRAP). In addition, the chimera
NC90-TRAP has the additional property of retaining the
active (ATP-dependent) chaperone capacity of hsp90.
NC90-TRAP does not end in MEEVD nor does it stably interact
with Hop. These data indicate that a yet undefined requirement for actively chaperoning is conserved in the carboxyl-terminal regions of
both TRAP1 and hsp90.
We proposed in an earlier study (12) that the role of Hop in chaperone
processes goes beyond simply bringing hsp70 and hsp90 into contact to
unite these two powerful chaperone systems. Previous reports
demonstrate that Hop can stimulate luciferase refolding in the presence
of hsp70 and Ydj1 even when hsp90 is not present (12), that F5 antibody
against Hop inhibits progesterone receptor maturation without
disrupting hsp90·Hop·hsp70 complexes (16), and that the yeast Hop
homolog, Sti1, can alter hsp90's ATPase activity (45). The data
presented here also suggest a greater role for Hop than widely
accepted. Chimera NC90-TRAP behaves like hsp90 in its
ability to support active refolding in the presence of Hop. This
chimera, however, does not appear to bind Hop. If Hop's mechanism of
action is simply bringing together hsp70 and hsp90 as its name
(hsp organizing potein) implies,
then Hop should have no effect on refolding when chimera
NC90-TRAP is used in place of hsp90. There are several
possibilities for explaining these enigmatic results; an interaction
between NC90-TRAP and Hop may be substrate-mediated, or the
interaction may be through separate but interdependent effects on the
substrate requiring no physical contact at all. While
NC90-TRAP lacks the major region for binding Hop, Pearl and
Prodromou (45) have suggested that Hop also interacts with a region in the ATP-binding domain and this secondary site might then mediate an
interaction between NC90-TRAP and Hop. Additionally, it
remains possible that the cooperative effect of Hop and hsp90 observed
in luciferase refolding occurs through Hop's modulation of
hsp70/Ydj1-mediated refolding (12).
Pearl and Prodromou (45) have shown that Hop inhibits the ATPase
activity of hsp90 even though it binds near the C terminus of hsp90. An
inhibitory effect of Hop is also suggested by our studies using
GST-(446-728). This hsp90 fragment provides some chaperoning activity
in the luciferase assay, but only in the absence of Hop. Thus, Hop may
function to suppress certain activities of hsp90 until these activities
are necessary.
The simple fact that our attempts at fragmenting hsp90 to define its
functional domains failed to uncover isolated regions of chaperone
function shows that the activity of this chaperone is a complex process
involving multiple domains. While simple events such as binding
interactions can be seen in isolated domains of hsp90, no domain is
sufficient in itself to carry out the more complex tasks of hsp90
chaperone activity. The vital interactions between hsp90 domains may
take a number of forms. Two possibilities we suggest are regulatory
interactions between the ATP-binding domain and the conformation of a
substrate-binding domain or the necessity of dimerization to the proper
function of other domains.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We thank Bridget Stensgard, Nancy McMahon,
Laura Blaisdell, and Pia Roos for technical assistance, M. Christine
Charlesworth in the Mayo Protein Core Facility for assistance in
protein purification, and X. Meng and J. Devin-Leclerc for assistance
in the preparation of GST constructs. SF9 cell growth, treatment, and
harvesting were conducted by Dean Edwards and Kurt Christenson at the
University of Colorado Cancer Center Tissue Core.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health
Grants DK 46249 and HD 09140 (part of the Specialized Cooperative Center Program in Reproduction Research) (to D. T.) and by grants from the Association pour la Recherche sur le Cancer and Ligue Contre le Cancer (Indre) (to M. G. C.).The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
¶
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St.
Southwest, Rochester, MN 55905. Tel.: 507-284-8401; Fax: 507-284-2053;
E-mail: toft.david@mayo.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, July 26, 2000, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M005195200
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
hsp, heat shock
protein;
GA, geldanamycin;
Hop, hsp organizing protein;
GST, glutathione S-transferase;
PAGE, polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis;
Tricine, N-[2-hydroxy-
1,1-bis(hydroxymethyl)ethyl]glycine.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Gupta, R. S.
(1995)
Mol. Biol. Evol.
12,
1063-1073
|
| 2.
|
Lindquist, S.,
and Craig, E. A.
(1988)
Annu. Rev. Genet.
22,
631-677
|
| 3.
|
Aligue, R.,
Akhavan-Niak, H.,
and Russell, P.
(1994)
EMBO J.
13,
6099-6106
|
| 4.
|
Borkovich, K. A.,
Farrelly, F. W.,
Finkelstein, D. B.,
Taulien, J.,
and Lindquist, S.
(1989)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
9,
3919-3930
|
| 5.
|
Yue, L.,
Karr, T. L.,
Nathan, D. F.,
Swift, H.,
Srinivasan, S.,
and Lindquist, S.
(1999)
Genetics
151,
1065-1079
|
| 6.
|
Buchner, J.
(1999)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
24,
136-141
|
| 7.
|
Toft, D. O.
(1998)
Trends Endocrinol. Metab.
9,
238-243
|
| 8.
|
Bartha, B. B.,
Ajtai, K.,
Toft, D. O.,
and Burghardt, T. P.
(1998)
Biophys. Chem.
72,
313-321
|
| 9.
|
Grenert, J. P.,
Sullivan, W. P.,
Fadden, P.,
Haystead, T. A. J.,
Clark, J.,
Mimnaugh, E.,
Krutzsch, H.,
Ochel, H. J.,
Schulte, T. W.,
Sausville, E.,
Neckers, L. M.,
and Toft, D. O.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
23843-23850
|
| 10.
|
Prodromou, C.,
Roe, S. M.,
O'Brien, R.,
Ladbury, J. E.,
Piper, P. W.,
and Pearl, L. H.
(1997)
Cell
90,
65-75
|
| 11.
|
Scheibel, T.,
Neuhofen, S.,
Weikl, T.,
Mayr, C.,
Reinstein, J.,
Vogel, P. D.,
and Buchner, J.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
18608-18613
|
| 12.
|
Johnson, B. D.,
Schumacher, R. J.,
Ross, E. D.,
and Toft, D. O.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
3679-3686
|
| 13.
|
Johnson, J.,
Corbisier, R.,
Stensgard, B.,
and Toft, D. O.
(1996)
J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol.
56,
31-37
|
| 14.
|
Sullivan, W.,
Stensgard, B.,
Caucutt, C.,
Bartha, B.,
McMahon, N.,
Alnemri, E. S.,
Litwack, G.,
and Toft, D. O.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
8007-8012
|
| 15.
|
Pratt, W. B.,
and Toft, D. O.
(1997)
Endocr. Rev.
18,
306-360
|
| 16.
|
Chen, S.,
Prapapanich, V.,
Rimerman, R. A.,
Honore, B.,
and Smith, D. F.
(1996)
Mol. Endo.
10,
682-693
|
| 17.
|
Grenert, J. P.,
Johnson, B. D.,
and Toft, D. O.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
17525-17533
|
| 18.
|
Kosano, H.,
Stensgard, B.,
Charlesworth, M. C.,
and Toft, D. O.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
32973-32979
|
| 19.
|
Chang, H. J.,
Nathan, D. F.,
and Lindquist, S.
(1997)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
17,
318-325
|
| 20.
|
Nair, S. C.,
Toran, E. J.,
Rimerman, R. A.,
Hjermstad, S.,
Smithgall, T. E.,
and Smith, D. F.
(1996)
Cell Stress and Chaperones
1,
237-250
|
| 21.
|
Smith, D. F.,
Sullivan, W. P.,
Marion, T. N.,
Zaitsu, K.,
Madden, B.,
McCormick, D. J.,
and Toft, D. O.
(1993)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
13,
869-876
|
| 22.
|
Bose, S.,
Weikl, W.,
Bugl, H.,
and Buchner, J.
(1996)
Science
274,
1715-1717
|
| 23.
|
Freeman, B. C.,
Toft, D. O.,
and Morimoto, R. I.
(1996)
Science
274,
1718-1720
|
| 24.
|
Schneider, C.,
Sepp-Lorenzino, L.,
Nimmesgern, E.,
Ouerfelli, O.,
Danishefsky, S.,
Rosen, N.,
and Hartl, F. U.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
93,
14536-14541
|
| 25.
|
Schumacher, R. J.,
Hansen, W. J.,
Freeman, B. C.,
Alnemri, E.,
Litwack, G.,
and Toft, D. O.
(1996)
Biochemistry.
35,
14889-14898
|
| 26.
|
Shaknovich, R.,
Shue, G.,
and Kohtz, D. S.
(1992)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
12,
5059-5068
|
| 27.
|
Scheibel, T.,
Weikl, T.,
and Buchner, J.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
1495-1499
|
| 28.
|
Young, J. C.,
Schneider, C.,
and Hartl, F. U.
(1997)
FEBS Lett.
418,
139-143
|
| 29.
|
Chen, C. F.,
Chen, Y.,
Dai, K.,
Chen, P. L.,
Riley, D. J.,
and Lee, W. H.
(1996)
Mol. Cell Biol.
16,
4691-4699
|
| 30.
|
Felts, S. J.,
Owen, B. A.,
Nguyen, P.,
Trepel, J.,
Donner, D. B.,
and Toft, D. O.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
3305-3312
|
| 31.
|
Song, H. Y.,
Dunbar, J. D.,
Zhang, Y. X.,
Guo, D.,
and Donner, D. B.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
3574-3581
|
| 32.
|
Meng, X.,
Devin, J.,
Sullivan, W. P.,
Toft, D. O.,
Baulieu, E.-E.,
and Catelli, M. G.
(1996)
J. Cell Sci.
109,
1677-1687
|
| 33.
|
Alnemri, E. S.,
and Litwack, G.
(1993)
Biochemistry
32,
5387-5393
|
| 34.
|
Schumacher, R. J.,
Hurst, R.,
Sullivan, W. P.,
McMahon, N. J.,
Toft, D. O.,
and Matts, R. L.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
9493-9499
|
| 35.
|
Caplan, A. J.,
Tsai, J.,
Casey, P.,
and Douglas, M. G.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
18890-18895
|
| 36.
|
Jakob, U.,
Lilie, H.,
Meyer, I.,
and Buchner, J.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
7288-7294
|
| 37.
|
Scheibel, T.,
Siegmund, H. I.,
Jaenicke, R.,
Ganz, P.,
Lilie, H.,
and Buchner, J.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
1297-1302
|
| 38.
| Deleted in proof
|
| 39.
|
Stebbins, C. E.,
Russo, A. A.,
Schneider, C.,
Rosen, N.,
Hartl, F. U.,
and Pavletich, N. P.
(1997)
Cell
89,
239-250
|
| 40.
|
Obermann, W. M. J.,
Sondermann, H.,
Russo, A. A.,
Pavletich, N. P.,
and Hartl, F. U.
(1998)
J. Cell Biol.
143,
901-910
|
| 41.
|
Panaretou, B.,
Prodromou, C.,
Roe, S. M.,
O'Brien, R.,
Ladbury, J. E.,
Piper, P. W.,
and Pearl, L. H.
(1998)
The EMBO J.
17,
4829-4836
|
| 42.
|
Nemoto, T.,
Ohara-Nemoto, Y.,
Ota, M.,
Takagi, T.,
and Yokoyama, K.
(1995)
Eur. J. Biochem.
233,
1-8
|
| 43.
|
Maruya, M.,
Sameshima, M.,
Nemoto, T.,
and Yahara, I.
(1999)
J. Mol. Biol.
285,
903-907
|
| 44.
|
Pearl, L.,
and Prodromou, C.
(2000)
Curr. Opinin. Struct. Biol.
10,
46-51
|
| 45.
|
Prodromou, C.,
Siligardi, G.,
O'Brien, R.,
Woolfson, D. N.,
Regan, L.,
Panaretou, B.,
Ladbury, J. E.,
Piper, P. W.,
and Pearl, L. H.
(1999)
EMBO J.
18,
754-762
|
| 46.
| Chadli, A., Bouhouche, I., Sullivan, W., Stensgard, B., McMahon, N.,
Catelli, M. G., and Toft, D. O. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U. S. A., in press
|
Copyright © 2000 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Stahl, M. Retzlaff, M. Nassal, and J. Beck
Chaperone activation of the hepadnaviral reverse transcriptase for template RNA binding is established by the Hsp70 and stimulated by the Hsp90 system
Nucleic Acids Res.,
September 25, 2007;
35(18):
6124 - 6136.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
Y. Ye, C. Quijano, K. M. Robinson, K. C. Ricart, A. L. Strayer, M. A. Sahawneh, J. J. Shacka, M. Kirk, S. Barnes, M. A. Accavitti-Loper, et al.
Prevention of Peroxynitrite-induced Apoptosis of Motor Neurons and PC12 Cells by Tyrosine-containing Peptides
J. Biol. Chem.,
March 2, 2007;
282(9):
6324 - 6337.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. A. Fares and S. A. A. Travers
A Novel Method for Detecting Intramolecular Coevolution: Adding a Further Dimension to Selective Constraints Analyses
Genetics,
May 1, 2006;
173(1):
9 - 23.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|